1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Mewa Ram Tiwari against the order dated 23.3.1993 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patti, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ''respondent no.2') with a further prayer that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to function as Manager of the School, namely, Rajarshi Tandon Laghu Madhyamik Vidhyalay, Upadhyaypur, Patti, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ''the School').
2. The facts relevant for the decision of the controversy are that the School in question is a recognized Junior High School governed by the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The said School is being run by a Society, namely, Rajarshi Tandon Laghu Madhyamik Vidhyalay Samiti, registered in 1968 under the Societies Registration Act. Initially, the School was given temporary recognition for imparting education upto Class 8th, but later on, it was granted permanent recognition in 1972.
3. As per the Bye-laws of the Society, a Committee of Management was to be elected by the General Body of the Samiti and under Bye-laws no.6, 7, 8 and 11 of the said Bye-laws, the Committee of Management had a tenure of three years, but the Manager was given the power to dissolve the Committee and to take over all the charge and management of the School in his own hand.
4. In view of the fact that Pandit Maha Narain Pandey was instrumental in giving the status of Junior High School to the School in question, he was given status of life long Manager of the School, the Samiti as well as the Managing Committee and was authorized to nominate any person to act as Manager after him. He had the veto power in every kind of election, opposition or disagreement between the members of the Society.
5. It has been alleged by the petitioner later on, substituted by his son Arun Kumar Tiwari that respondent no.4 Maha Narain Pandey remained as Manager of the School and the Society in terms of the Bye-laws for a long time. No elections were held since the date of inception of the Society till 1978. The certificate of renewal of registration of the Society was also not applied for, by Maha Narain Pandey even after coming of the amendment in 1975. On 4.4.1978, the respondent no.4 withdrew an amount of Rs.5103/- from the School's account and misappropriated the same. The Committee of Management met in the School Premises on 5.4.1978 and expressed its displeasure at the conduct of respondent no.4. Annoyed by this action of other members of the Committee of Management, respondent no.4 tendered his resignation from the membership of the Society and Managership of the School on 6.4.1978 and nominated the petitioner Mewa Ram Tiwari to act as Manager. An emergent meeting of the Committee of Management was held thereafter on 7.4.1978 after notice was circulated for the same by Bharat Singh, the Secretary of the Society, in which, they accepted the resignation of respondent no.4 and the nomination of the petitioner-Mewa Ram Tiwari to function as Manager. The information about the nomination of new Manager was sent to the District Basic Education Officer, Pratapgarh, who by a letter dated 26.6.1978, accepted the signatures of the petitioner-Mewa Ram Tiwari.
6. The petitioner thereafter took steps for renewal of registration of the Society and also called a General Body meeting of the Society on 24.4.1978 to suitably amend the Bye-laws of the Society and to do away with the monopoly enjoyed by the Manager in the earlier Bye-laws. Bye-laws no.6, 7, 8 and 11 were suitably amended and information was sent to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and amendment in the Bye-laws was also accepted by him. In the meantime, since enquiry had started into various acts of commission and omission of respondent no.4, respondent no.4 started making efforts to capture the post of Manager again. He wrote complaint to the Deputy Director of Basic Education and to the Registrar of the Societies, saying that he has not resigned.
7. The Regional Deputy Director accepted the application of respondent no.4 and passed an order that till the decision of the dispute pending before the Registrar, the petitioner would not be allowed to function as Manager.
8. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition, challenging the order of the Regional Deputy Director and this Court by means of an interim order, asked the Regional Deputy Director to appoint an Authorized Controller to work in the School during the pendency of dispute before the Registrar.
9. On 8.12.1978, the Registrar decided the dispute in favour of the petitioner and the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. The Registrar, by his order dated 8.12.1978, framed four issues, which were with regard to the amendment in the Bye-laws and the resolution of the General Body dated 24.4.1978; whether the respondent no.4 had indeed submitted his resignation on 6.4.1978; whether the petitioner Mewa Ram Tiwari and Bharat Singh had been removed from the membership of the Society on 31.3.1978 by the then Manager Maha Narain Pandey; and whether the list submitted by the petitioner of the office bearers of the Committee of Management was a correct and valid list.
10. All the issues framed were decided in favour of the petitioner and respondent no.4 filed Writ Petition No.120 of 1979, challenging the said order of the Registrar dated 8.12.1978. This Court by a detailed order, disposed of the writ petition on 1.12.1983. The finding of the Registrar regarding the amendment in the registered Bye-laws of the Society was not disturbed. With regard to the three other issues decided by the Registrar, this Court found the order of the Registrar to be without jurisdiction and issued a direction to him to make a Reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act (for short ''the Act').
11. It has been submitted by Sri Sharad Pathak on behalf of the petitioner that after 15 years of resignation of Maha Narain Pandey and 10 years after the Reference, the Prescribed Authority has passed the impugned order by which, it has rejected the case of the petitioner regarding submission of resignation by respondent no.4 and also accepted by the case of respondent no.4 regarding removal of the petitioner Mewa Ram Tiwari and Bharat Singh from the membership of the Samiti on 31.3.1978.
12. It has been further submitted that this Court by its judgment and order dated 1.12.1983 had already upheld the amendment made in the Bye-laws by the petitioner, but the Prescribed Authority has overreached its jurisdiction and held that no such amendment can be said to be valid as Maha Narain Pandey continued to work as Manager of the Society.
13. It has been submitted by Sri Sharad Pathak that in the meantime, periodical elections were held of the Committee of Management in 1993, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014 and on 7.5.2017 where the petitioner Mewa Ram Tiwari continued to be elected as Manager. After his death, his son Arun Kumar Tiwari was elected as Manager, and an order was passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad in favour of the petitioner as no election proceedings were filed by the respondent no.4 before the Assistant Registrar.
14. All of a sudden, Mahendra Kumar Pandey, son of Maha Narain Pandey, respondent no.4 submitted an application before the Assistant Registrar, which was allowed on 18.8.2018, recognizing earlier elections held by Mahendra Kumar Pandey, without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner filed Writ-C No.28764 of 2018 against the order dated 10.8.2018, which was allowed by this Court and the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad was directed to decide the controversy afresh. The dispute is still pending consideration before the Assistant Registrar in terms of the order passed by this Court on 24.7.2018.
15. Sri Sharad Pathak has argued on the basis of pleadings made in the writ petition and the judgment and order dated 1.12.1983 that this Court has already decided about the validity of the amendment in the Bye-laws and the Registrar by his Reference order dated 21.1.1984 had referred only three issues to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority did not touch upon the two issues i.e. the alleged expulsion of Mewa Ram Tiwari and Bharat Singh from the membership of the Samiti and the new list of office bearers of the Committee of Management being filed by Mewa Ram Tiwari on the basis of elections held by him in terms of the amended Bye-laws.
16. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the impugned order would show that no consideration on the merits of the case as pleaded by the petitioners was done by respondent no.2. All of a sudden, after enumerating the facts as pleaded by both the parties, on the last page of the impugned order, the Prescribed Authority has held that since the respondent no.4 never resigned, there could not be any ground to accept the case of the petitioner Mewa Ram Tiwari that he was nominated by the respondent no.4 and was recognized as Manager thereafter by the Committee of Management in the meeting held on 7.4.1978. Since the petitioner Mewa Ram Tiwari was not elected or nominated as Manager and Maha Narain Pandey had continued to function as Manager, there was no question of amendment in the Bye-laws to do away with the monopoly of Maha Narain Pandey.
17. It has been submitted further by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 30.3.1993 being non-speaking is liable to be set aside, for which, he has placed reliance upon several judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court, which are as follows:
(1) Prasad @ Hari Prasad Acharya vs. State of Karnataka, 2009 (3) SCC 174 (Paras 8, 9 and 10);
(2) M/s. Kranti Association Pvt. Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmad Khan and others, 2010 (9) SCC 496 (Para 47);
(3) Committee of Management of Mahadeo MP Sabha vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (31) LCD 2439 (Paras 10 and 11); and (4) State of Punjab vs. Bandeep Singh and others, 2016 (1) SCC 724 (Para 4).
18. It has additionally been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once this Court by its order dated 1.12.1983 has upheld the jurisdiction of the Registrar in relation to the validity of amendment made in the Bye-laws of the Society, the respondent no.2 could not have ignored the order of the Division Bench.
19. Sri Sharad Pathak has read out the judgment and order dated 1.12.1983 in detail before this Court and on the basis thereof, has submitted that once this Court had not disturbed the finding of the Registrar with regard to the amendment in the Bye-laws, the respondent no.2 despite having knowledge of the same, could not have observed that since there was no resignation of Maha Narain Pandey, there was no question of amendment in the Bye-laws having been effected by the Society. Moreover, there is no jurisdiction with the Prescribed Authority to decide the validity of the amendment in the registered Bye-laws of the Society.
20. With regard to the validity of the amendment in the Bye-laws of the Society being the exclusive domain of the Registrar, Sri Sharad Pathak has referred to two judgments in the case of Union of India vs. Praveen Kumar and others, 2003 (21) LCD 1351 and Kanya Vidyalaya Kisrauli vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 Law Suit (Allahabad) Page 1741 and has submitted that the observation of the Prescribed Authority with regard to the validity of the amendment in the Bye-laws is void as it is without jurisdiction.
21. Sri Sharad Pathak has also argued that the resignation of respondent no.4 was being disputed by respondent no.4 and, therefore, he was duty bound to produce evidence in support of his claim that his signatures were forged. It is settled proposition of law that a person, who alleges fraud, has to prove the same. He has referred to a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gyan Chand and Brothers and others vs. Ratan Lal and others, 2013 Vol.-II SCC 606 (Paras 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22). It has been submitted that the Supreme Court has time and again held that the burden of proving the signatures of the defendant as forged lies upon the defendant himself. The respondent no.2 has accepted the contention of respondent no.4 without examining the correctness thereof. On the other hand, the petitioners had produced ample evidence with regard to signatures of respondent no.4 i.e. Cash Book, Salary Bills etc and also produced the report of Handwriting Expert in support of his claim that respondent no.4 had indeed resigned from the post of Manager on 6.4.1978, and nominated the petitioner Mewa Ram Tiwari.
22. It has been submitted by the petitioners' counsel that the Prescribed Authority has given five grounds for holding the resignation of respondent no.4 to be forged, but all these five grounds have been demolished by the petitioners by amending his writ petition and adding Paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and 26, which have not been specifically controverted by respondent no.4 by filing a counter affidavit to such averments.
23. Dr. L.P. Misra, arguing on behalf of respondent no.4 (later on substituted by his son Mahendra Kumar Pandey), has submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous as no interim order was granted by this Court when the same was filed in April, 1993. The School in question had continued to be run by respondent no.4 till his death and in the meantime, nine elections have been held, and all such proceedings relating to elections have been placed before the Deputy Registrar, who has already accepted the same. It has been submitted that it has already been observed by the Supreme Court in Nagri Pracharini Sabha vs. Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi and others (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 36, that it would be futile to decide infructuous disputes.
24. It has been submitted by Dr. L.P. Misra that during the pendency of the writ petition, Maha Narain Pandey died and instead of substituting him by his son Mahendra Kumar Pandey, who has been elected as Manager of the Society and whose signatures have already been recognized by the competent authority under the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salary to the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978, an amendment application has been moved and Mahendra Kumar Pandey has been arrayed as respondent no.5 by the petitioners.
25. It has been submitted further by the learned counsel for the private respondent that this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.120 of 1979 (Maha Narain Pandey and another vs. Registrar, Chits, Funds and Societies, U.P., Lucknow and others) had taken note of the four issues determined by the Registrar for deciding the claim. These four issues were with regard to; (1) Removal of Mewa Ram Tiwari and Bharat Singh from the membership of the Samiti; (2) The resignation of Maha Narain Pandey from the office of Manager; (3) The amendment in the Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws of the Samiti; and (4) The list of new office bearers of the Samiti.
26. It has been submitted that in its judgment dated 1.12.1983, the Division Bench of this Court had quashed the order passed by the Registrar dated 9.12.1978 only in so far as it related to findings recorded on Issue no.1, 2 and 4. The order of the Registrar, so far as it related to Issue no.4 was not disturbed. However, the findings recorded by the Division Bench related only to the jurisdiction of the Registrar exercised by him under Section 3 read with Section 4-A of the Act. The order of the Registrar on the validity of the amendment as such was not upheld. The only issue decided was whether the Registrar had jurisdiction to test the validity of the amendments in the Memorandum of Association and the Bye-laws.
27. Dr. L.P. Misra has further submitted that in compliance of the judgment rendered by this Court on 1.12.1983, The Registrar by an order dated 21.1.1984, referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority with regard to the question of continuance of office bearers, namely, Bharat Singh as Secretary and Mewa Ram Tiwari as Manager; the resignation of Maha Narain Pandey and the list of new office bearers. It has further been submitted that Maha Narain Pandey continued to function as Manager and never resigned from the said post, and was recognized both by the officers of the Education Department and by the officers under the Societies Registration Act, and after his death, his son Mahendra Kumar Pandey has been functioning as such.
28. It has been further submitted that several documents have been brought on record in the supplementary counter affidavit, relating to holding of periodical elections and passing of orders by the District Basic Education Officer, recognizing the signatures of Maha Narain Pandey and thereafter his son Mahendra Kumar Pandey as Manager of the Society and the School. The School being a Junior High School, the same Committee of Management and the Manager continued to function for the Society and for the School. On the other hand, there is a serious dispute raised with regard to certain proceedings of election having been held by the petitioner Mewa Ram Tiwari and thereafter his son Arun Kumar Tiwari.
29. It has also been submitted further that Maha Narain Pandey had also lodged an FIR against the petitioner Mewa Ram Tiwari for making alleged forged signatures and a criminal case was registered, namely, Criminal Case No.394 of 2005, but before Maha Narain Pandey could be examined as a prosecution witness, Maha Narain Pandey as well as the accused Mewa Ram Tiwari died, therefore, it cannot be said that Mewa Ram Tiwari has been honourably acquitted by the learned trial court in Criminal Case no.394 of 2005.
30. It has further been submitted by Dr. L.P. Misra that no annual list of members of General Body of the Society has been filed by the petitioners nor the list of office bearers elected from time to time before the Deputy Registrar or before this Court.
31. With regard to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the respondent no.2 is non-speaking, it has been submitted by Dr. L.P. Misra that the proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act are summary in nature and against such orders, writ petitions should not be entertained as there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioners by filing a suit.
32. It has further been submitted that the writ petition involves decision on highly disputed questions of fact and such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners should be relegated to the remedy of filing a civil suit before the competent Civil Court.
33. It has been submitted that even otherwise, the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority are well considered and this Court by way of judicial review, should not interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority.
34. Dr. L.P. Misra has also submitted that this Court had tested the order passed by the Registrar dated 8.12.1978 only on the touch stone of jurisdiction and did not deal at all with the issue whether the alleged amendments made in the Bye-laws of the Society in the alleged General Body meeting held on 24.4.1978 were actually made, or were made in accordance with the statutory prescriptions of Section 12 of the Act.
35. Also, the Prescribed Authority has decided only three issues referred to it by the Reference Order dated 21.1.1984. It has not touched upon the legality or illegality of the amendments made in the Bye-laws of the Society, but has simply stated that since Maha Narain Pandey did not resign, any action taken by the Committee of Management or the General Body, amending the Bye-laws of the Society cannot be said to be valid.
36. According to Dr. L.P. Misra, if the factum of resignation of Maha Narain Pandey and the consequential taking over by Mewa Ram Tiwari as Manager on 7.4.1978 is not accepted, any further proceedings taken by Mewa Ram Tiwari as Manager shall automatically fall on the ground on the accepted principle that once the foundation goes, the entire super structure or edifice based on such foundation also automatically falls.
37. It has also been submitted by Dr. L.P. Misra that in the Reference order made by the Registrar dated 21.1.1984, it has been clearly stated that the amendments allegedly made in the Memorandum of Association and the Bye-laws of the Samiti were not being taken on record, and the action on the same shall be taken after the decision of the Prescribed Authority, and this aspect of the matter cannot now be reopened by the petitioner.
38. It has further been submitted by Dr. L.P. Misra that the affairs of a registered Society have to be conducted in accordance with the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Bye-laws made by the Society. Neither the Act nor the Rules framed thereunder provide anywhere that the Junior High School shall be run by the Society on democratic basis. There is no specific provision in the Basic Education Act as is found in the Third Schedule of the Intermediate Education Act. There is no separate Scheme of Administration containing a prohibition against the monopoly in favour of a particular person, caste, creed or family. In a Junior High School, the Committee of Management of the Society functions as the Committee of Management of the Junior High School as well, and there is no concept of there being any approved Scheme of Administration as mandatorily required in the case of a High School or an Intermediate College.
39. Having heard the rival contentions, this Court has perused the judgment and order dated 1.12.1983 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.120 of 1979 (Maha Narain Pandey and another vs. Registrar, Chits, Funds and Societies, U.P., Lucknow and others)
40. This Court finds from a perusal of the said judgment that at the time of oral arguments, the only dispute raised by Sri S.L. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners therein, was that the Registrar could not have decided the dispute in respect of right of petitioner no.1 to continue in office as Manager of the Society, which right was claimed by the petitioners, but was denied by respondent no.1 i.e. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow.
41. It had been argued before the Court in Writ Petition No.120 of 1979 that a dispute regarding continuance of office bearers could only be decided by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act as amended from time to time. Mewa Ram Tiwari arrayed as respondent no.2 in the aforesaid Writ Petition No.120 of 1979 had submitted before the Division Bench that there was no dispute regarding the elections of office bearers of the Society, therefore, the Registrar had not decided any such dispute. The order of the Registrar was passed under Sections 3 and 4-A of the Societies Registration Act. Moreover, the writ petitioner Maha Narain Pandey was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Registrar and he himself has approached him for deciding the dispute.
42. This Court considered Section 25(1) of the Act and found that the Prescribed Authority could consider in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of election or continuance of office bearers. It was not the case of Mewa Ram Tiwari that he had been elected to the office of the Manager. Mewa Ram Tiwari had submitted that he became Manager on the nomination made by Maha Narain Pandey under the old Bye-laws. The Division Bench has observed that ''we have to see whether the Registrar has, by his impugned order, resolved any issue or dispute in respect of continuance in office of an office bearer of the Society......'. The Division Bench thereafter observed that dealing with the four issues framed by him, the Registrar had come to the conclusion that Maha Narain Pandey had not resigned from the office of Manager, therefore, there could not be any question of nomination of Mewa Ram Tiwari. This was an issue, which related to continuance of office bearers, which could not have been decided by the Registrar.
43. Dealing with the other two issues regarding amendment in the Memorandum of Association and the Bye-laws, and the list of new office bearers of the Society, the Registrar had observed that the amendment in the Memorandum of Association and the Bye-laws was valid and the list of new office bearers of the Society was also accepted. The Division Bench observed that the list of new office bearers could not have been accepted by the Registrar as it also amounted to deciding the question regarding continuance of office bearers.
44. The Division Bench further observed that ''in respect of the amendment of Smriti Patra and Niyamawali, the Registrar held that the Basic Education Department had been requiring the petitioner no.1 to amend the said documents so as to bring them in conformity with law, but petitioner no.1 was not taking any steps in that behalf. The Registrar further held that the amendment now made in the Smriti Patra and Niyamawali are in accordance with the requirement of law and they are, therefore, valid. The question of amendment of Smriti Patra and Niyamawali is not mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 25. obviously this question was not one which was required to be decided by the Prescribed Authority.......'.
It has been observed by the Division Bench further that ''where dispute was raised with regard to the amendment in the Smriti Patra and Niyamawali, the Registrar had to decide whether such change or amendment had in fact taken place. This jurisdiction could, therefore, be exercised by the Registrar under Section 3 read with Section 4A of the Act. Section 3-A deals renewal of registration. This matter also is required to be dealt with by the Registrar himself. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Registrar on point no.3 cannot be challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The order of the Registrar so far as it relates to this point cannot, therefore, be quashed, but it will have to be quashed so far as it relates to matters covered by point nos.1, 2 and 4.' (Emphasis supplied)
45. It is apparent that the Division Bench made no observation with regard to the validity of the amendments carried out in the Smriti Patra and in the Niyamavali and whether they were in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It only observed that the Registrar's order with regard to the validity of the amendment could not be challenged on grounds of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction was vested in the Registrar as the Registrar exercised power under Sections 3, 3-A and 4-A of the Act relating to registration of a Society, renewal of certificate of registration of the Society and intimation of changes in the Rules and Bye-laws of the Society to the office of the Registrar to be made in time.
46. The challenge raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the order impugned on the ground that the Prescribed Authority while making observations regarding validity of amendments in the Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws had ignored the observations of the Division Bench and had far exceeded its jurisdiction, cannot, therefore, be said to be appropriate and deserves to be rejected.
47. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority was not interfered with by this Court at the time of initial filing of the writ petition. From a perusal of the order sheet, it is apparent that from 1993 till 2019, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on three occasions, and it was restored on application for recall being allowed thereafter.
48. From a perusal of the affidavits filed by the respondents, it is evident that the contention of the petitioner no.1 that he continued to function as Manager on the basis of nomination made by Maha Narain Pandey and its acceptance by the Committee of Management on 7.4.1978 has been seriously disputed. In fact, in the Reference made by the Registrar on 21.1.1984 filed as Annexure to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.4, it is evident that the Deputy Registrar while making such Reference on the basis of judgment and order dated 1.12.1983 had also observed that the amendment allegedly made in the Bye-laws, although had been filed by Mewa Ram Tiwari and had been accepted by the then Registrar after the judgment and order dated 1.12.1983, the question of continuance of Maha Narain Pandey being referred to the Prescribed Authority, the amended Bye-laws were not being put in the file and status quo shall be maintained till the decision of the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority remained seized with the dispute till 23.3.1993, and the amendments made in the Bye-laws by the new Committee of Management, therefore, could not be said to have been recognized till the decision of the dispute, as this Court had observed that Reference be made by the Registrar to the Prescribed Authority regarding continuance of the office bearers of the Society.
49. The petitioner Mewa Ram Tiwari did not file any writ petition, challenging the observations made by the Registrar in his Reference order dated 21.1.1984, with regard to maintenance of status quo in respect of recognition to the Bye-laws, and the observation that they are not being accepted on the ground that the order dated 21.1.1984 is in violation of the observations made by the Division Bench in its judgment and order dated 1.12.1983.
50. With regard to other affidavits exchanged between the parties, in the counter affidavit filed by Maha Narain Pandey, documents have been filed to show that he continued to function as Manager of the Society. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners, there is a dispute raised regarding continuance of Mewa Ram Tiwari. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by Mahendra Kumar Pandey son of Maha Narain Pandey, documents have been filed to show that he has been working after the death of his father as Manager.
51. This Court is not concerned with this dispute regarding continuance of one or the other person as Manager during the pendency of the writ petition as it would amount to entering into seriously disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction, only on the basis of affidavits filed by both the parties.
52. With regard to the observations made by the Prescribed Authority in the order dated 23.3.1993 and merits of the case, this Court finds that under Section 25(1) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority is only required to decide in a summary manner any dispute relating to election of office bearers or continuance of office bearers. The Prescribed Authority has observed that Mewa Ram Tiwari continued to act as Manager even after the alleged submission of resignation by him as claimed by Mewa Ram Tiwari on 6.4.1978. This fact was recognized by the Regional Deputy Director of Basic Education, Faizabad Region, Faizabad in his order dated 6.8.1978.
53. This Court also finds that dispute had been rendered infructuous as several elections have been held in the meanwhile i.e. from the date of Reference dated 21.1.1984 upto the date of decision by the Prescribed Authority on 23.3.1993. The fact that Prescribed Authority ultimately held that Mewa Ram Tiwari continued in the office as Manager also meant that Mewa Ram Tiwari and Bharat Singh had been expelled by him by Resolution dated 31.3.1978. The Prescribed Authority in the order dated 23.3.1993 has in fact gone into the details of all the arguments raised on behalf of Maha Narain Pandey and Mewa Ram Tiwari and also into subsequent events with regard to continuance of Maha Narain Pandey.
54. The order impugned cannot be said to be a non speaking order as the findings of fact have been recorded by the Prescribed Authority with regard to no resignation being submitted by Maha Narain Pandey from the office of Manager. Since there was a tussle between Maha Narain Pandey and Mewa Ram Tiwari, there was no question of nominating Mewa Ram Tiwari by Maha Narain Pandey as Manager to function after him. Such a conclusion reached by the Prescribed Authority cannot be said to be without any basis.
55. The amendment in the Bye-laws allegedly made after the resignation of Maha Narain Pandey also cannot be said to have been made as Maha Narain Pandey never resigned, therefore, there was no question of Committee of Management amending the Bye-laws no.6, 7, 8 and 11, taking away the monopoly of Maha Narain Pandey with regard to all questions of administration of the School and Society.
56. This Court does not find any good ground to show interference that this stage, moreso, when it is admitted by the parties that a dispute regarding the election proceedings submitted by Mahendra Kumar Pandey in the office of the Assistant Registrar being accepted by him on 10.8.2018, is still pending after Writ-C No.28764 of 2018 was allowed by this Court, and the matter was referred for decision afresh before the Assistant Registrar.
57. The writ petition is disposed of.
58. The parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate Court after decision of the dispute by the Assistant Registrar, which is pending before him.
Dated: September 27, 2019 Sachin